Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add clause for 'Specifications using RDFS, SHACL, and OWL to state requirements' #18

Open
dr-shorthair opened this issue Jun 27, 2024 · 6 comments

Comments

@dr-shorthair
Copy link

Alongside the clauses for UML, XML Schema etc.

@dr-shorthair dr-shorthair changed the title Add clause for 'Specifications using RDFS and OWL to state requirements' Add clause for 'Specifications using RDFS, SHACL, and OWL to state requirements' Jun 27, 2024
@cnreediii
Copy link
Collaborator

@dr-shorthair That should be "standards using . . . :-) That said, while I do not disagree with the suggestion, who will write these clauses? And what are the implications with using Metanorma? Again, another topic for discussion!

@cmheazel
Copy link
Collaborator

Consider re-structuring the ModSpec as a multi-part standard. A core (platform independent) Part 1 and technology specific parts 2-n. This would mirror how we write other standards.

@cnreediii
Copy link
Collaborator

@cmheazel Totally agree! This issue (18) is actually two sub-issues: ModSpec version 2 should be in Parts as you suggest and some future parts could/should be JSON, OWL, etc.

Perhaps Issue 18 can be resolved in the near term.

@rob-metalinkage
Copy link

I don't think we make this mandatory, but specifications that can use a technology appropriate machine readable and testable constraints are going to be far better than those relying on discovering and parsing and interpreting text alone.

@cmheazel
Copy link
Collaborator

RDFS, SHACL, and OWL are usually used together. Suggest that we document these requirements as three sections of one part.

@cnreediii
Copy link
Collaborator

Currently added as note in Future Work clause.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants